Ernst Haeckel’s Biogenic Law; often stated as “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” (an embryo goes through all the stages of its “evolutionary ancestors”) had been formulated with the help of faked drawings and outright lies had been debunked by his own scientific peers. Jonathan Wells notes in his book “Icons of Evolution” that even though the theory had been discredited over 100 years ago, Haeckel’s drawings were still being used in the latest edition of Molecular Biology of the Cell, written by National Academy of Sciences president and distinguished cell biologist Bruce Alberts and his colleagues.

It tends to support evolution dogma you see.

The “Link”

Fossil “Ida” was introduced with as much fanfare, braggadocio, Darwinian smarm and chutzpa as can be imagined. Ida it was claimed was the “eighth wonder of the world” and could cure cancer or bad breath just by being gazed upon. There were tie-ins to movies, television programs, videos, books and Ida plush toys. Darwinists apparently thought that the little rodent proved that there was no God!

Early on, much of the criticism of the Ida publicity machine came from other evolutionists–some who admittedly were promoting their own favorite little furry animals–but many were concerned about the overheated claims. Now, a new analysis of the fossil will make most of the Ida claims go extinct. (This changes everything!) The value of Ida memorabilia is already plummeting…..s8int.com

‘Eighth wonder’ Ida is not related to humans, claim scientists
US palaeontologists dismiss initial claims about the 47million-year-old fossil found in Germany’s Messel Pit

Her arrival was announced with unrestrained razzmatazz. She was the “eighth wonder of the world”, “our Mona Lisa” and an evolutionary “Rosetta Stone”, according to the researchers who unveiled her.

The female in question was Ida, a 47million-year-old primate, whose exquisitely preserved fossil was touted as the remains of our earliest human ancestor. She was, they said, the “link” between us and the rest of the animal kingdom.

Or maybe not. Writing in the journal, Nature, a team of palaeontologists from New York claim that Ida is not related to humans at all. Instead, they conclude, the $1m fossil looks more like a small lemur or maybe a loris.

The challenge is being seen as the opening salvo in what is shaping up to be a hearty academic slugging match. At stake is not only the significance of one of the most extraordinary fossils unearthed, but the reputations of some of the world’s leading researchers. So far, relations between the two sides are strained but courteous.

“Our analysis and results have convinced us that Ida was not an ancestor of monkeys, apes, or humans, and if anything has more relevance for our understanding of lemur and loris origins,” said Erik Seiffert, a fossil hunter at Stony Brook University in New York who led the Nature study.

By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer Malcolm Ritter, Ap Science Writer â€“ Wed Oct 21, 5:09 pm ET
NEW YORK â€“ Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary? A publicity blitz called it “the link” that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans. Experts protested that Ida wasn’t even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.

In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York.

He and his colleagues compared 360 specific anatomical features of 117 living and extinct primate species to draw up a family tree. They report the results in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature.

Ida is a skeleton of a 47 million-year-old cat-sized creature found in Germany. It starred in a book, “The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor.”

Ida represents a previously unknown primate species called Darwinius. The scientists who formally announced the finding said they weren’t claiming Darwinius was a direct ancestor of monkeys, apes and humans. But they did argue that it belongs in the same major evolutionary grouping, and that it showed what an actual ancestor of that era might have looked like.

The new analysis says Darwinius does not belong in the same primate category as monkeys, apes and humans. Instead, the analysis concluded, it falls into the other major grouping, which includes lemurs.